Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

The case for considering arms cuts

Closed-minded resistance to change has been at the root of many historic blunders, the author writes. | Reuters

Every Trident sub in today’s fleet has missiles that can destroy every major city in China or Russia and completely obliterate smaller nations. If a credible threat is the essence of deterrence, then it is safe to say we can make significant reductions with no impact whatsoever on our deterrent capacity.

Other arguments for a large redundant force don’t hold up, either. In response to those who might argue that the U.S. must retain a larger force given the threats we must deter, our obligations to our allies, or that such a small force might be vulnerable to a first strike, the authors of the Air Force study concluded that “this thinking simply ignores the vast conventional superiority of the United States, and is also undermined by the fact that the United States is deterred in most contingencies by China, which has a much smaller force structure.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Those who think it is surprising that a study has been commissioned outlining a range of nuclear force options don’t understand history or how to defend our nation. Their greatest fear appears to be that a change to the status quo Cold War force is even being contemplated.

History’s greatest military minds and powers have been marked by their willingness to explore all options and make informed decisions. At the same time, closed-minded resistance to change and unwavering defense of bureaucratic inertia have been at the root of a great many historic and strategic blunders.

Though the initial story was the result of a leak aimed at embarrassing the president and pre-emptively limiting the range of possible actions he may consider, most would agree that the time-honored Washington tradition of leaking stories to try to limit options and protect bureaucracies and pork-barrel funding is not what the nation deserves when it comes to making national security policy.

It is in our nation’s interest to take a hard look at the nuclear force we really need.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Monroe served more than 46 years in the U.S. Army and the California Army National Guard. From 1999 to 2004, he was adjutant general of the California National Guard.

Skint, you should be ashamed. Clearly, you had nothing to say to any of his arguments, so you try to besmirch a man who has served his country his whole life and that any simple Google search will show won the Distinguish Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Meritorious Service Medal. Gens. Mullen, Gates, Powell, Shelton have all been REPLACED too...that is how our military works, just as it does assessments of our security needs periodically. If you want to disagree with a point raised in an article, fine. But the way you chose to respond to this piece indicates you've got nothing to say, and it would have been better if you'd left it that way.

Well put Gen. Monroe. We need to stay secure, and nukes play their role as a deterrant. If we ever use them, we've lost already. Since just one sub can destory the major cities of Russia and China, not to mention any dictatorship, that is a pretty darned good deterrance! And then we have bombers and ICBMs too. Obviously, we can do with a smaller force, and it would be much better to take a portion of those billions being spent on nukes just sitting around and spend it instead on what our troops need to fight terrorists and our current enemies. Budgets are zero-sum games, and our troops need all the support they can get right now.

Susan wrote: "Clearly, you had nothing to say to any of his arguments, so you try to besmirch a man who has served his country his whole life and that any simple Google search will show won the Distinguish Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Meritorious Service Medal"

Does the phrase "General Betray-Us" ring a bell, Susan? You "Progressives" took out FULL-PAGE ADS with the SOLE purpose of "besmirching" a man whose qualifications were far higher than you find in a commander of the California National Guard.

Monroe's record is what we call "unremarkable." DSM, LM and MSM are to be expected in the jacket of ANY Army two-star, the same way that you expect the pilot of a 757 to have Commercial and Instrument ratings.

For an Army National Guard officer to lecture us on strategic weapons is like an Air Force officer to lecture on tanks -- we can have our opinions, but we are operating outside of our field of expertise. Consider also that money spent on AF equipment can't be spent on Army equipment.

J, your comment perfectly summarizes the problem we have in America and especially any political discourse. I had nothing at all to do with any full-page ad, and I assume Gen. Monroe did not either. Nor am I a "progressive." So you are starting off 0-2. I'm not familiar with the ad you are talking about but assume it was an attack on Gen. Petraeus. Did you think that was appropriate? Did it make America seem a better place and honor the sacrifices of our troops? Then why are you using it as a template for your actions?

I was raised to believe you should do unto others, not as they have done unto you, but as you would have them do. You realize you are justifying a personal attack againts an American General because someone else you disagree with personally attacked another general? That is like saying you are justified in stealing your neighbor's car because someone stole your bike at work. It's just sad.

And I will point out that there are still no responses to any of the general's actual arguments other than the one pointing out how compelling they are. As the op-ed points out, it was a study by Air Force experts (is the Air Force a good enough source for you) that said we could maintain our deterrence with a much smaller force. Perhaps instead of attempting pitiful and disappoint attacks on the author, those of you who disagree might explain why his arguments aren't valid?

Second, if you READ the SSQ article, the authors say that this number is the absolute minimum necessary -- they don't suggest such a drawdown, they are saying that any less than this level will simply not work.

It is the same as saying that you can survive on 300 calories per day. This works fine until you have to handle any stress or activity.

I don't like nuclear weapons. I'm trained to deliver them, but I don't like them. Unfortunately, we have to have them, and we have to have enough that our enemies fear our ability enough to never force us to use them.

May I remind you that Russia still has unknown numbers of nuclear warheads and they can't account for them all? And Russia is by no means an ally? And that Russia is allied with definite enemies of the United States who would in fact bomb the US, given the chance? Why get rid of our warheads (at expense) when we very well may need them again (more expense) to make sure we have enough pointed at each enemy that no one would ever think of going on the offensive against us? Thus averting nuclear war? Obama's an idiot.

One benefit of restructuring the nuclear weapons first-strike, counter-strike, and deterrent force would be to move away from nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, short-range nuclear missiles, nuclear artillery shells, nuclear backpack weapons, and nuclear coffee-thermos and briefcase weapons. In Europe when we pulled back our short and intermediate-range nuclear weapons we were able to de-escalate with the Soviets. Now we need to stop the next generation nuclear arms race. Force restructuring is a good place to start.

Developing a plutonium hollow-pit implosion weapon is a much more difficult process... but necessary to mount a 150 kiloton warhead on a missile. This is the step that needs to be blocked by a new international treaty. Plutonium hollow-pit missile launched nuclear weapons are offensive weapons ---

One might think that 321 bishops would take 6 pawns. But in the bizarre game of destroying our world... the smuggled nuclear weapon already in port makes the US Coast Guard have a vastly more difficult defense than the Israeli Navy.

Big Satan or Little Satan? Who is at greater risk from Shia or Sunni jihadis with six, ten or twenty nuclear pawns in cargo containers? And what is the US policy on retaliation if and when a smuggled weapon hits a Gulf State or US coastal target and some non-nation-state website claims Muslim glory? Would not AQ Khan send more packages? More if the US retaliates? Or more if the US fails to retaliate? Here is where the Cold War logic breaks down. Here is where Nuclear WInter is replaced by global warming as the air conditioning clicks off around the world. Here is where Launch-on-Warning turns into no logical retaliatory target. The US cannot nuke Mecca. Or can we?

What no one but Newt Gingrich has figured out is that jihadis do not care about their lives - or anyone else's life - but they do care about Mecca and all of their ancient shrines. Only Newt is wild enough to pull off threatening Mecca Assured Destruction for any nuclear attack on the United States. Only Newt ...

Hello, how are you doing today? i hope all is well.My name is goodness oumar In search of a man who understand the meaning of love as Trust and faith in each other rather than one who sees love as the only way of fun, but a matured one with Nice Vision of what the world is all about,and after reading your profile today I took Interest in you, so please reply me with this Email (goodness.oumar@yahoo.com)i will be very happy to read your reply so that i will send my picture to you then we can start know more about each other.Thanks and God bless